Utah Court of Appeals
Can grandparents gain custody by showing the other parent was absent? D.A. and S.A. v. D.H. Explained
Summary
Grandparents sought custody of their infant grandchild after their daughter died, arguing they could rebut the father’s parental presumption by showing their deceased daughter was ‘the parent who is absent.’ The juvenile court ruled that the Act required evidence that the father himself, whose presumption was being challenged, was absent.
Analysis
When a parent dies and grandparents seek custody of their grandchild, which parent’s absence matters under Utah’s custody laws? The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this critical question in D.A. and S.A. v. D.H., clarifying how courts should interpret the Custody and Visitation for Persons Other than Parents Act.
Background and Facts
After an unmarried mother died, her parents sought custody of their infant granddaughter. The child’s father had been unaware of his paternity for over a year but had begun establishing a relationship with the child before the mother’s death. The grandparents filed a petition under Utah Code § 30-5a-103, arguing they could rebut the parental presumption because their deceased daughter was “the parent who is absent.”
Key Legal Issue
The case turned on interpreting subsection (2)(g) of the Act, which allows rebuttal of the parental presumption when “the parent is absent.” The grandparents contended this referred to any parent who had been involved with the child, while the father argued it must refer to the parent whose presumption was being challenged.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, reading the provision “as part of a harmonious whole.” The court emphasized that the Act protects the fundamental liberty interest of parents in making decisions about their children’s care. Under the grandparents’ interpretation, a fit parent could lose custody without any finding of absence, abuse, or neglect—a result incompatible with constitutional protections. The court held that “the parent” in subsection (2)(g) unambiguously refers to the parent whose presumption is being challenged.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that third parties seeking custody must demonstrate specific deficiencies in the parent they’re challenging, not merely the absence of another parent. Practitioners should focus their evidence on showing that the targeted parent is absent, abusive, or neglectful. The ruling also demonstrates how courts will interpret custody statutes in harmony with constitutional protections for parental rights, making successful challenges to fit parents significantly more difficult.
Case Details
Case Name
D.A. and S.A. v. D.H.
Citation
2014 UT App 138
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120756-CA
Date Decided
June 19, 2014
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Under Utah’s Custody and Visitation for Persons Other than Parents Act, ‘the parent’ in subsection (2)(g) refers to the parent whose presumption is being challenged, not to any absent parent who may have previously been involved in the child’s care.
Standard of Review
Correctness for statutory interpretation; clear error for underlying factual findings
Practice Tip
When challenging parental presumptions under Utah Code § 30-5a-103(2)(g), ensure evidence specifically addresses the fitness and presence of the parent whose rights you’re seeking to overcome, not other parents who may be absent from the situation.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.